Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
Reexamination Request Filed Against Funai Patent
| March 17, 2009
After some initial procedural difficulty, an ex parte request for reexamination was filed with the PTO, alleging a substantial new question of patentability with respect to claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,021,018. The ‘018 patent is owned by Funai Electric Co., Ltd., and is entitled “LOADING MECHANISM FOR LOADING A VIDEO CASSETTE.” This is a mechanical subsystem for opening and closing a VCR door.
The request appears to have been filed on behalf of Daewoo Electric Motor Industries Ltd. Daewoo was accused by Funai of infringing the ‘018 patent in the Northern District of California (3:04cv1830) in a case filed in May 2004. A jury later found that Daewoo had willfully infringed the ‘018 patent, as well as two other patents, and awarded the ‘018 patentee $9.5 million. The only matter remaining to be decided appears to be the patentee’s request for its expenses.
Reexamination requests have also been filed for the other two Funai patents in the litigation.
UPDATE
(May 1, 2009)
The PTO granted the request for reexamination of the ‘018 patent on May 1, finding that a substantial new question of patentability exists.
The PTO noted that the original examiner had relied upon the claim limitation – so that said door is opened before said cassette holder is moved when said cassette holder is moved to said initial position – in his statement of reasons for allowance. In the present Action, the PTO states that this limitation is satisfied by one of the prior art references asserted in the reexamination request. Interestingly, that reference is identified on the cover page of the ‘018 patent.
